Chad Smith wrote:
I'm not saying that Linux "can't" run games, like there is something within Linux itself the prohibits the high-end performance that Windows can deliver. I know that's not the case.
Actually, that may be the case. I recall a thread in this forum many months ago -- another one of those Linux rulez, Windows droolz things -- where a comment was made concerning the stability of Linux vs. Windows. The upshot was that Linux was more stable because Windows has some graphical processing built into the kernel, whereas Linux separates them. So an app could crash the X-window system but the kernel would keep on running.
In this respect the GNU/Linux architecture is similar to Windows 3.1 running on top of DOS. This can be a big advantage; for example, I'm running a Smoothwall firewall on my network on an old P120 w/ 80 MB of ram. No GUI, but it has a web-based admin system like my wireless router. Works just fine -- total cost: about $30 for a network card (that I could have gotten cheaper on-line).
But on the other side of this dual-boot, Fedora Core 4 runs the exact same versions of the same apps (Mozilla, OOo) decidedly slower than WinXP. Even the printer runs slower! Now maybe you can design a Linux game that runs without a desktop or window manager like the full-screen DOS games, but calling it from Gnome or KDE will be a big performance hit. Finally, you have to consider that the video drivers may not be as good depending on your specific card.
If they play Solitaire and Free Cell, then, yeah, Linux can do that.
For that matter, I think the cards in the Linux versions are butt-ugly. -- Rod --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
